Truth about things: Action and thought



Truth about things: Action and thought: Exploring the idea of thought and the actions of man in the global consciousness is a topic that has no unity whatsoever because in 1983 as Jiddu Krishnamurti and Physicist Dr David Bohm defends is based on divisions, who have different experiences and depending on the culture the knowledge of knowing of what is going on is different.

Now it is the same but as we see in different news the objectives and the audience in which the delivery is made has many values. These values are linked from location; communities that have different links and celebrations, that in order to incite happiness have to be covered.

Coming away from false beliefs is not always necessary when thought, sound and entertainment is based on a couple of needs.

A need to know in relation to what has just happened or what we presume is known. False beliefs are suggested in a world of distractions and different topics.

Education is trying to cater for all these needs, and as set up in the conversation between Dr David Bohm and Jiddu. Jiddu does not by his own admission have a knowledge of the more recent train of thought forced through Psychology, supported by the western proof that cognitive ways of acknowledging outside interpretations can be altered and controlled.

Jiddu talks however, about consciousness and the future of man. He is a speaker, but in the dialogue with another thinker, he is consistently trying to convey his simple message. Consciousness and sub consciousness is a similar topic as reality and illusion. With this understanding Jiddu draws the line between the two; one being sanity and the other being insanity. In order to stop the insanity of man we see Jiddu highlight the avoidance of these thoughts in a world that needs peace.

As consciousness develops the repetition of each others thoughts seems a logical solution, because from this dialogue we can begin to understand the reservations and look beyond the pace the answer seems to be answered, and is notably is only based on two individuals knowledge.

In the Youtube video we see the two guy's surrounded by books giving us the assumption that they are thinking of many different types of books. To understand someone's knowing we would have to know previous conversations, know which chapters of all those books each had absorbed, and the amount of books surrounding oneself could also be a distraction. Without those books being there we could see some kind of rules in this game.

A game is set on a playing field where both teams recognise a similar place to play. It is often assumed that when a team travels away it is at an disadvantage, and the home team has its local fan-base. As individuals and both speakers addressing an audience and then highlight the difference between active students and students who guide and educate themselves.

Both forms of mind growth are based on location. For example if you were in a book shop in India many of the books would be in Urdu, and in New York many of the books will be in English, French, Spanish, or other languages at most.

Each language has its own alphabet and each letter resonates and evokes different types of knowing. To build a synaptic link between these differences as they explain the events that occur from key points in time of conflict or what is perceived as negative decisions and the retention this thought of man, is...

The expression of man is freedom.

One is selling freedom and the other is presuming that freedom creates the problem.

The dialectic between the two is based by my interpretations as the boundaries that grow between the two.

Each individual goes between agreement and disagreement. They both use similar types of repetition and revalidate each others values and what seems equally valuable in this conversation is the use of memory, the signpost of using ones own experience to hold onto the voice that resonates without any sign of emotion and self examining pain.

Later they move into the crucible principle that justifies the idea of conflict brings about change and new realities. This is them moving into the shared reading of someone else's interpretation of pain and suffering brought about by conflict, loss and by all observations depression at the lower levels of consciousness, or perhaps the higher levels of emotion.

Jiddu throughout by all admission looks for the difference between peoples statements and facts and questions intelligence as being the sub consciousness in a dream fantasy world trying to solve realities when the two are obviously not congruent. However parallel worlds are proving to come together and creating new ideas and answers but the end goal is not constant because there is always as they both agree more to learn.

How the two react to what other people do and how the relationship and pretential bonds between the two are based it is clearly based on wanting, the desire for wanting, Jiddu sets up the reminders and disrupts this by saying this cannot happen. Love and compassion is a necessary part and understands this dialect however he rightly highlights his boundaries of sexual love based issues. Its good that they both draw the line at this unity, because this discussion is about the future of mankind for the next generation of children people, and society.

The machines and extensions are justified then by blaming of the increase in things going wrong affecting the natural life-cycle of the planet and the synaptic links between earths over population and mans use of these new tools and instruments. Throughout the conversation they do both use there minds to measure and interpret what it is they are saying. They do not spend much time on this statement and both agree to I assume to avoid something they know not enough about apart from the fact it is something man uses in society to makes things easier.

The dialectic between the two highlights two differences between knowing and knowledge. The record of data, the inbuilt memory of man and the limitations of one individual to another.

Too learn is to know but to remember is limited, but with the data available in media over a broad spectrum of data free from any objection; simply interested in truth, consequences and final results is safe to be introduced to the next generation of inhabitants of the area in which the inhabitants live. We each speak for our tribe and objectivity is difficult and understanding of programming of machines is based on individual and teams which is very similar to the argument of language and speech. Each works better when communicating in the place of knowing that can be quantified by the memories and convictions of definitions between consciousness and unconsciousness, reality and unreality, sanity and insanity, suffering and individual and collective suffering.



 But the reality as we are finding out of the machine or rather the computer is still based on old memory that is reconfigured throughout time and most of the database is being wiped or transferred to allow the new programming to do its work. This statement is an acknowledgement of how memory is limited, how quickly both we and machine forget, but if we are shaped by memory we should always consider and retain as much memory as possible, in order to progress and not get stuck on a merry go round of repetitive mistakes.



Video Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Professoranton
http://www.youtube.com/user/KrishnamurtiArchive
http://www.youtube.com/user/robbwindow